Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the City of Georgetown violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in failing to respond in a timely and proper fashion to the request of Aaron L. Wilson to inspect the "salary and portions of the resume and/or application for employment of Vickie Martin reflecting relevant prior work experience, educational qualifications, and information regarding ability and fitness to discharge responsibilities of her employment" and "Any and all reprimands contained within her employment file." 1 In addition, Mr. Wilson questions whether the City properly redacted extensive information from the responsive application for employment prior to releasing a copy. From a procedural standpoint, the City violated the Open Records Act by initially failing to issue a written response within three business days; the City also failed to provide Mr. Wilson with the name and location of the custodial agency in violation of KRS 61.872(4) and inadvertently omitted certain records, but subsequently acknowledged and remedied both errors. 2 On appeal, Mr. Wilson takes issue with Mayor Everette Varney's failure "to indicate when the records would be available," the belated nature of the responses provided by Mr. Blankenship on March 27, 2006, and March 29, 2006, and the redaction of certain information by the City from Ms. Dickerson's application for employment.
In our view, the analysis and reasoning of 05-ORD-064 and 06-ORD-006, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference, are controlling on the facts presented. Although the City is entitled to withhold identifying information such as Ms. Dickerson's social security number, home address and telephone number, and medical information, as well as the contact information of her personal references (as opposed to their names), the City violated KRS 61.880(1) in failing to cite the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the information, KRS 61.878(1)(a), and briefly explain how the exception applies to the information withheld. Unless the City can satisfy the burden of proof imposed upon public agencies by virtue of KRS 61.880(2)(c) relative to the remainder of the application, the City must also disclose this information. 3 To hold otherwise would contravene governing precedent.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 On March 29, 2006, Rogell Blankenship, Human Resources Director, affirmatively indicated to Mr. Wilson in writing that Ms. Dickerson's "file contains no reprimands" ; nothing more is required in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See 05-ORD-264, pp. 3-4.
2 That being the case, any related issues are moot. 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6; 04-ORD-046; 03-ORD-087.
3 To its credit, the City already disclosed the sections containing Ms. Dickerson's educational and employment background; any errors appear to have been committed in good faith.